chis

It's possible that the justification for phone bans could be along moral lines instead of data-driven. Think of how we regulate teenage sex for instance, those rules aren't based on "data" just common sense and social morals.

It seems really, really obvious to me that phones are bad for learning, mental health, social connection, etc. But nobody has been able to prove this in any studies, even in ones outside of the school environment. At some point I think we just have to do school phone bans regardless of the science.

I'm sorry but this comment is idiotic on so many levels

Quite the reverse honestly, I found it really funny that they didn't bother to have an AI proofread it before sending out

They're not really promising to do that. It's not even clear this model will be meaningfully commercialized. The key line is "Understanding and simulating the world is a crucial aspect of building AGI". This model will be used for research and robotics, and maybe the training of further models.

I've always thought this too. An iPad with an integrated case would be able to fill the entire flat back area with a battery, and just have rubber on the edges where impact protection is needed. The existing design is really optimized around having an impressive experience in the store when holding an uncased product, before you inevitably cover it.

The subreddit is filled with posts of people's devices breaking even on the first day of purchase. It's hard to know what the actual breakage rate is but it's certainly suggestive of problems. It would be crazy if Apple with all their typical polish managed to miss some major flaw.

How about the part when it drove upside down on a ramp, launched into midair and then used controlled thrusters to land with near-0 vertical speed

Yeah giving a 1 hour limit for code generation makes the whole thing a bit incoherent. Plus, performance is just going to depend on how closely the models have memorized the best open-source Starcraft bots and can reproduce them.

The world is changing. Meta entered the enterprise market for the first time ever, and now this. I'd guess they're feeling pretty open minded about throwing any products out there and seeing what sticks.

Generics sell in India for $15/mo so it’s not gonna be too bad, long term.

At this point it might legit be impossible for a side effect to be discovered that outweighs the immense health benefits of losing weight.

It feels like people want there to be some horrible side effect to these drugs. Idk if it’s some moral objection to weight loss without discipline, or just general mistrust of big pharma.

I'm not an expert on this. But isn't it the case that C++ code could have errors that span the entire codebase, like a setup in file A triggered by a bug in file B which is immensely far away on the import graph? A classic would be a use-after-free. To me that's the thing that Rust can help with, even if silly bugs aren't being written by AI.

The other thing is just that rewriting some old human-written codebase in Rust probably immediately catches many bugs. It would be hard to prompt the AI to properly scan for such bugs itself, they're lazy when working in that modality.

Well presumably now it’ll fall back to Sonnet 5.5 lol

This is a great approach. I remember even pre-AI having issues where, at a big state school, basically all the answers to homework could be found online. Sometimes I made the choice to copy a homework and tell myself I’d catch up later. But the classes where there was a scheduled quiz right away just forced me to keep up.

What if a piece of software were to exactly emulate a human brain. Would it be still be “just software” by your classification? What if a piece of software acted 20% like a human and 80% like an algorithm, where would that land?

They didn’t use a chatbot. It’s worth reading the article

What do you mean by this exactly, or have any sources? That's a bit cryptic

HN won't agree but that's a perfect example of an ethically grey product. It can be used for good, but you can easily trick such an AI into doing cyber attacks. Which again, maybe that's good! But other companies wouldn't be willing to risk their brand like that

The only edge Meta has at this point is their willingness to take risks and make unsafe, ethically grey AI products. I don't even mean this as some sort of anti-corporation hate speech, just an honest analysis. Their brand is so different from all the other big tech cos that they are in a unique position.

You can ask Meta Muse to take actions that clearly break other site's terms of service and it happily does it. I asked it to bot poker games and it just hopped right in to a table.

Personally I didn't find that guy very convincing. I think current frontier AI would already probably enable a non-expert to do gain-of-function work on a virus which could result in something like Covid.

And AI looks to keep getting better, and if it does then I don't see why it wouldn't become superhuman in virus design too.

I gave up on fable 5 after I asked it to critique my PR and it spit out a page of complete nonsense technical jargon. Like, to the point that I had to review the feedback with other models and try to parse what it was saying and ultimately it wasn't even right. Compare to Astra and Sol where I can almost forget there's a model and just speak/read naturally.

I think I should give 5.1 another chance but I am just so triggered by the way it talks after spending so long battling fable 5.

Also I'm starting to wonder if the latest round of models have finally saturated for my personal coding needs. I mean obviously not for taste and judgement, but those barely seem to improve with model generations. For just spitting out a 1000-line feature I've vaguely scoped out, Astra feels basically as good as I need.

> I don’t think AI is going to usher in an extinction event. In fact, even if nobody were to slow down, I really don’t think humanity would have much to worry about.

I mean sure. If you feel that way then your p doom is zero, and it makes sense to worry about things like market concentration or losing the fun of software engineering.

Chinese AI companies are a lot smaller in terms of capital, GPUs, and headcount as compared to American. The fact they’ve kept close so far is super impressive

GDP growth and inflation are different things. If inflation-adjusted GDP goes up, that means the average person is able to buy more things they want. Compare living in the US vs India today for the median citizen

Even at the scale of 100 people there is a coordination problem. If the 50 most conscientious researchers quit, then the 50 left behind would be the more aggressive group and be less interested in AI safety.

Personally I agree though. I would not be able to work on AI model development right now as I just don’t think it’s ethical. Fortunately for OAI/Ant I lack the relevant skillset anyways.

Nvidia is limited by the number of engineers they have. It might turn out that the AI market is so lucrative that it’s best to reallocate their gaming-focused engineers to AI.

Apple TV is at least a growth market for them, whereas gaming is sort of capped and clearly a tiny piece of nvidia’s revenue atm.

HN comments are just on a different planet lately lol

Fantastic answer thank you

> Opus